Leftist: “Appeasement Is A Viable Diplomatic Option”

Posted on by ( 5 comments already! )
Spread the love

Loading

Wow….I just had to post on this caller to Sean Hannity. If you want a look into the mind of a leftist go no futher then this recording of the call….Scary with a capitol S!

First a little transcript:

Caller – I think it’s 1908 like the Ottoman empire, our whole empire is about to collapse and give way.

[…]Caller – My second point I would like to make, do you know what my proudest moment would be is to have been on Neville Chamberlain’s staff and to go with him to Munich in 1938 and to return with him to London at the airport and to be able to say that there is peace in our time.

[…]Caller – Appeasement is a viable diplomatic option.

Listen to it here.

You will especially like how he says he would not help a neighbor being raped. None of his business.

This my friends is the new Democratic party.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
5 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Another Neville Chamberlain fan is Mr. Shlomo Wollins, Editor of IsraelReporter.com. Mr. Wollins said, in part, in a 6/6/06 article titled Iran & Champerlain:

What is the world doing here? Is this not a form of terrorist appeasement? Iran is the leading state sponsor of terrorism in the world and its president has declared its intention/desire to wipe Israel off the face of the map numerous times in the last few months. Why is the world prepared to reward that country’s genocidal leaders with billions in economic incentives? This is a perfect example of how not to fight terrorism, and mirrors the Promethean mistakes of Israeli leaders in the last two decades vis-a-vis arab terrorism. The response to a rogue regime with a cult ideology like fundamental islam should be a clear ultimatum — cease your enrichment activities or face
overwhelming and utter military force. However, this offer amounts to a form of economic Chamberlainism — appeasing the Iranian ‘threat’ with a lessening of trade barriers, diplomatic recognition, enriched nuclear fuel, and
will certainly impress the Iranian leadership that nuclear ambiguity provides the dual benefits of: (1) a virtual-shield from military/nuclear attack; and (2) a constant bargaining chip to extract further ‘concessions’ from world powers by threatening to resume internal enrichment unless demands are satisfied. In this way, the threat of (or actuality of) renewed enrichment activities will become an ongoing form of extortion and international blackmail.

What? Not “peace in our time?”

0

I couldn’t believe that either. It’s so incredibly stupid to think that anyone could even think such a thing.

I’m reading another Churchill bio, the one by Martin Gilbert. And I’m just getting to the part where Chamberlain did everything he could to weaken Britain and prevent it’s rearmament and preparation even in the face of the overwhelming threat from Germany.

The Brits barely survived the Battle of Britain. Had Neville been in office they most certainly would have lost.

0

I really wish some of these stupahdists would have kept their word, and moved to Canada after the 2004 Election.

0

I heard that same call, and my reaction was that the guy was either a fake trying to make liberals look bad, or he was mentally unbalanced. It just seemed too over the top to be real.

But then again, I go read the Daily Kos and am reminded that there are lot of leftist crazies out there who would probably agree with the caller….

0

What a fukking fool…

Mr. Mill summed it up pretty well:

“War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his
own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself” – John Stuart Mill

0